Curious about the Quasiturbine ?

[GillesQT]

Bonjour,

To know more, see the September 2006 Article
by Brian Cowan in
Engine Technology International magazine
« Quasiturbine: Unusual Engines - Turbine Tale
www.quasiturbine.com/Presse/EngineTechIntl0609.htm

Also, a paper abstract has been accepted by the
ASME - American Society Of Mechanical Engineers
for the Montréal May 2007 Turbo Expo Conference
www.asmeconferences.org/te07/
« Quasiturbine:
Low Revolution High Torque Pressure Turbine
for Top Efficiency Power Modulation »
A 350 Kb PDF partial preview at :
www.quasiturbine.com/QTPapiers/ASME2007QTMontreal.pdf
Vos suggestions seront les bienvenues...

Meilleures salutations, Gilles
www.quasiturbine.com

 

[News]

Hi GillesQT;





What is it that you want to know about the Quasiturbine
other than it's not very efficient due to the odd shaped
combustion chambers and would be a polluter similar to
that of the Wankel engine.

Or are you just spamming us again.

Duane,

Gilles is not selling anything. The engine is not for sale yet. He is
letting people know the progress of development of an engine that no one
else is developing. I have no problems with that. The efficiency and
polluting will be determined by testing.

It certainly looks simple and small enough. One of these powering a
generator in a hybrid may be a nice efficient cheap to run option - like in
the Mini. Just turns a generator not powering the engine directly. This
unit is small enough, and a superior power/weight ratio (power/weight ratio
is important in a vehicle) than a piston engine, which is a major advantage:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php

 

[News]

I am skeptic about the longevity of the internal parts in a
quasi-turbine. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea, but having moving
parts in the combustion chamber seems like it will lead to a
significant amount of problems. At the very least, it will have to use
extremely clean fuel because of junk acumulating on moving
parts...hopefully I am wrong though, because the engine would change
things....

Now, what you have said. Someone introduces the piston ICE. Those comment
are equally applicable. The Quasiturbine has a superb power/weight ratio,
which in vehicles that need to carry he weight of the engines is a great
bonus. As I pointed out, putting it on turning a genny is an ideal
application. It is also simple and all rotates the one way.

 

[digitalmaster]

Like I said, I hope it works. The thing I worry about is having moving
parts inside the combustion chamber. I think the quasiturbine is a
great idea, but so is the wankel engine and they still have some issues
with it. Don't get easily distracted by promises of a lighter engine
with better power to weight issues...

most all internal combustion engines have moving parts in the combustion
chamber

 

[Terryc]

most all internal combustion engines have moving parts in the combustion
chamber

which was the appeal of the wankel all those decades ago.

 

[News]

which was the appeal of the wankel all those decades ago.

There were many shapes of the rotor chambers of the Wankel, two stroke
amongst them. Wankel never invented it. It appears they picked the worst
shape - maybe because of patents. A Russian idea is to have the seals
static in the engine block with different rotor chamber shape. They could be
replaced by a DIYer.

There are rotary Stirling units being developed/prototyped. If these are
perfected and size is reduced, then the external combustion Stirling in a
hybrid setup turning only a genny sounds good. They may be feasible in CHP
home situations.

 

[News]

Ok,

a) there are not moving parts
INSIDE the combustion chamber
in a piston engine.

There is, a piston and 2 or 4 poppet valves.

Have you thought about how much of a pain
things like thermal expansion will be on a pivoting joint?

Like a pistin pushing down on a crank? yes.

and

b) again, they still can't get the
wankel right, so what makes you
think a more complicated system
will be any better?

They are not trying to alter the Wankel. Read what I wrote.

Seriously, lets be realistic here. There are a lot of really great
ideas out there, but right now they are surrounded by big IFs.

For a new idea to be accepted it has to be simpler, easier to make using
standard easy to make low precision parts, and do at least x2 the fuel
consumption and nearly no emissions for any large company to look at it.

The Revetec may be taken up by an Indian concern:
http://www.revetec.com

 

[digitalmaster]

Ok,

a) there are not moving parts INSIDE the combustion chamber in a piston
engine. The valves and pistons are not in the center of the region
where combustion occurs. Have you thought about how much of a pain
things like thermal expansion will be on a pivoting joint?

the pivoting joint is no more or less inside the combustion chamber than the
wrist pin on a piston of a 4 stroke ICE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine

check out the link and you will se what i mean.

 

[News]

There are no moving parts INSIDE a combustion chamber. PERIOD.

The boundaries of the combustion chamber move, but there are no
pivoting points in DIRECT contact with the combustion process. The
only parts that actually come in contact with the combustion process
are the piston (and piston rings), the cylinder walls, the flat on the
valves, and the cylinder head. The valves are closed during the
combustion process and not in motion. The crankshaft NEVER contacts
the combusting gasses, and if it does then your engine has some serious
issues. The pin connecting the piston to the rod also does not contact
the combustion process and the pin does not affect the seal in the
combustion chamber.

So yes, there are moving parts in an engine, but the only moving
component in the combustion chamber is the piston, and the seal that is
formed while sliding on the cylinder wall is relatively easy to
maintain.

Also, as a side note, the temperatures in the combustion chamber of
most engines is hot enough to melt most of the materials that make up
the rest of the engine. As long as the materials

The nature of the quasi-turbine means that instead of just a sliding
component, you are additionally introducting a pivoting joint in
contact with the combustion process. While the overall engine is a
little simpler than a traditional ICE, the actual combustion chamber
(the most important part of the engine) has become slighltly more
complicated.

Look, seriously, like I said, I like the idea of the quasi-turbine, I
just dont think it is feasable right now as a piston engine replacement.

I wonder of Gilles would like to comment.

 

[News]

I would love to see a low vibration, high revving, rotary engine on a
motorcycle. Suzuki tried it in the 70s with a Wankel engine, but it
never caught on....

The Norton F1. Brilliant. Norton improved the rotary design too. The
engine is now used is some light aircraft as Norton are no longer here.

 

[News]

It sounds somewhat like the StarRotor, which is making good progress.
See
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automotivetech/e5690576b64fc010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/3.html

or check out its web site, www.starrotor.com

Bob

Not quite. The star rotor is a variation of the turbine (jet). It has been
around for a while. It would be superb for the generator or an EV generating
electricity only to charge batteries. These can be small with a superb
power/weight ratio, so a small setup can be hidden in a car. If anything
wrong with it the whole unit can be taken out and worked on, like you would
do with a starter motor.